1 2025:CGHC:27065 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 716 of 2022 Kanwaljeet Singh Chauhan S/o Goraknath Chauhan Aged About 33 Years R/o Flat No. 202, Galaxy Apartment, Near Sanket Colony, Amravati (Maharashtra) ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Surbhi Singh Chauhan W/o Kanwaljeet Chauhan Aged About 30 Years R/o Ashwini Nagar, Near Jagganath Temple, Purani Basti , Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : None. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Faiz Kazi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23 /06/2025 1. None appears on behalf of the applicant to press this criminal revision, when the matter is called out. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 23.05.2022 passed by learned First Additional Principal AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.367/2020, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed to pay Rs.30,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent and the appellant got married on 22.11.2019, according to Hindu customs in Raipur. After the marriage, the applicant and his family members started harassing the respondent mentally, taunting her about the marriage not being according to their status and not receiving cash and gifts. The applicant’s mother took away the jewelry worn by the respondent after the marriage and kept it with herself. The applicant also took away the money given to the respondent by her parents for personal expenses. The behavior of the applicant and his family members became increasingly harsh. When the respondent complained, the applicant and his family members abused her and threatened to kill her. The applicant had a habit of watching pornographic videos and forced the respondent to engage in similar activities and establish unnatural relationships. When the respondent refused, the applicant beat her and forced her into unnatural sex from the second or third day of their marriage. 4. When the respondent informed her mother-in-law and sister-in-law about this, they justified the applicant's actions, saying it was natural. On 07.12.2019, the respondent’s mother visited her 3 daughter's matrimonial home, where she was insulted and quarreled with. The applicant returned to her matrimonial home on 03.01.2020, after the applicant assured her that he would not repeat his actions in the future. However, the applicant started harassing her even more. The respondent filed a complaint at the Women Police Station in Raipur on December 7, 2020, about the harassment. Due to the harassment by the applicant and his family members, the respondent has been living at her parental home since March 2020 out of compulsion. 5. The respondent is a homemaker with no source of income. The applicant is well-off and serves as an Assistant Director, Accounts and Treasury, Amravati, Maharashtra, in the Class 1 Officer Cadre, with a salary of Rs.1,00,000/-. The applicant has requested Rs.40,000/- per month as maintenance. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay Rs.30,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that learned Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 4 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the pay Rs.30,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing that the respondent stated in her application and court testimony that she has no source of income, doesn't work, and is a homemaker dependent on her parents. In her affidavit, she mentioned being a homemaker and having no income. The respondent disclosed a 2200 sq. ft. property gifted by her aunt but stated no income is generated from it. The applicant, on the other hand, is an Assistant Director with the Maharashtra Government, earning a net salary of Rs.58,430 per month (though a pay slip shows Rs.1,12,544). He also owns 3.5 acres of land and a 5000 sq. ft. residential plot. Given the applicant’s good income and ability to pay, and considering the respondent’s right to live according to the applicant’s standard of living, the Family Court has come to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled to maintenance. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 5 11. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil